Listen.

I'm mad. You're mad. We're all mad. But you're mad at ME. You're taking it out on ME. I'm asking "so what do you actually want to have happen and your answer is "I want to lecture you, avoid your questions, pillory you and hold you accountable" despite the fact that I walked into this pointing out that shitting on people asking questions helps nothing.

Check it. we're on the same side. Yet me saying "we're on the same side" just gives you more license to shit down my neck.

Your name is green to me so I know you don't hold me in utter contempt. yet your actions? your speech? Your syntax? holds me in utter contempt.

See dude, let's talk about this. Because I don't know why you're taking this so personal when at no point was my intention to shit on you, but explain where I stand.

So the entire media universe is outraged, yet you see denial.

This holds little meaning because the American media and population have both proven themselves to be pretty fickle. Not only that, media portrayal is subject to the same bias. Why is it that we know more about Walter Scott's mistakes in the immediate coverage than the faults of the man that shot him? This is consistent across pretty much every incident.

Media is outraged now, but what happened to coverage of Tamir Rice, Rekia Boyd, Eric Garner being choked to death on video? How is it that these things clearly worth discussion fall out of the news cycle for a Justin Bieber roast?

Is it really unreasonable that many of us have little faith in the intentions of corporate media?

I point out that you're being sincerely engaged and you MUTHERFUCKING QUESTION MY SINCERITY.

And then proceed to lecture me.

Um, yeah dude, we're speaking on the internet. I dont actually know you. I didn't think it offensive to restate the position that I've observed you take. As far as the "lecture," I am stating why I feel step 1 needs to be taken more seriously at large. Again, there are actionable items I tried to explain in step 2 that require a lot more people having reached step 1 (IMO.)

If we're in an environment where people can say they've reached step 1, but also say "I have no way to act on this." I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there's a problem in making step 1 happen. Which is why I feel that those who feel it legitimate to claim having reached that point should be very active participating in the sub points, especially 2a,b. Because, to me, those are the very first actionable items that facilitate 2c even being able to happen at large.

I will openly apologize if my use of English has led to you interpreting my words as a personal admonishment. I assure you I'm trying to state my position and understanding overall. I'll even concede that my wording could come across as aggressive. However, that does not change my stance on not knowing your personal actions in real life. You could very well be a model citizen and even do a better job at the items I think and feel should happen, but I do not feel this makes my points illegitimate at large, which is the P.O.V from which I am trying to write.